The Democrats won 5 of the 9 recall elections and won the overall popular vote with a 50.5% share. In 2008, Obama won all 9 districts with a 54.5% share.

The Republicans won 4 of the 6 GOP districts with 55.2%. Obama had 51.5% in the four districts. To accomplish this, there had to be an implausibly low Obama voter turnout and/or an implausibly high defection of Obama voters.

The Democrats did 3.2% better than Obama in the three Democratic recalls, but 5.4% worse in the 6 GOP recalls, an implausible difference.

In the GOP districts, voter turnout was 65% of the 2008 presidential election; it was 48% in Democratic districts.

These anomalies, combined with documented evidence of voting irregularities and exit poll results, are very strong indicators of Election Fraud. It is very likely that the Democrats won at least seven of the nine elections.

In the 6 GOP recall elections, 65% of Obama and McCain voters returned to vote. Assuming zero net defection, approximately 58% of Obama voters and 85% of McCain voters turned out. That is a very implausible difference. Assuming equal 65% turnout, the Democrats won 82% of Obama voters and Republicans won 92% of McCain voters – an implausible 10% net Obama defection.

In the 2 GOP districts won by the Democrats with an average 53.2% share, Obama had 55.9%. Total turnout was 66%. Approximately 63% of Obama voters turned out. That is plausible. Assuming equal turnout, the Democrats won 91% of Obama voters and 5% of McCain voters. Very plausible.

The 3 Democratic recall elections were landslides. The Democrats had a 58.8% aggregate share. Obama had 55.5%. Approximately 48% of 2008 voters turned out. Assuming zero net defection, 52% were Obama and 44% McCain. That is plausible. Assuming equal 48% turnout, the Democrats won 98% of Obama and 8% of McCain voters (6% net McCain defection). Also plausible.

Wow, an interesting, yet likely absurd analysis. It’s completely based on the idea that just about everyone who voted for Obama is still pretty happy with both him, and the policies of the Wisconsin unions that up until recently pretty much ran the state.

But, it’s fun the way you present the numbers.

Look around! People are very unhappy. People feel betrayed, And the government unions made it very clear – either you support our ridiculously overpaid, over pensioned lifestyle to the deficit of your own lifestyle, or you are the enemy. That tends to piss off a lot of independents.

Also, I’ll bet a goodly number of folks felt back in 2008, let’s give Obama a chance – I don’t want to be called a racist – not much difference between McCain, and Obama anyway… I’ll vote for Obama, give change a chance, this one this time.

That boost of good will went bye bye when unemployment increased to double digits from his promised “it won’t go above 8%, and almost 3 years later, still over 9%… (and all the other promises down the drain, notably transparency…

Your argument is mostly based on that there would not be a shift from liberal to conservative. It’s a false idea. Perhaps you should look at patterns from previous elections – the two Bush senior campaigns, the two Reagan campaigns, and the two Clinton campaigns. Realizing Obama only has two elections behind him, the point is, things tend to change faster today… So, anything (shifts in sentiment) that could happen in 4 years a couple of decades ago, today can happen in 2 years, or even months (ya see, there were no blogs back then…)

Want to see shifts that make the ones you are talking about, look insignificant, I’ll bet all you have to do is look at voting patterns between Reagan’s first and second elections… and the mid-terms. The voter shifts were huge…

Still: It’s easy to spin numbers, probably will make a good short flick for Michael Moore. -a

I suggest you look more closely at the model sensitivity analysis. It covers a range of turnout and voter scenarios.
The recalls were NOT a referendum on Obama; they were a referendum on Walker and the GOP. The models indicate Democrats did BETTER than the recorded vote.

What’s the exit poll source? Are the numbers adjusted for the apparent demographics of all voters at each polling station, or are they raw totals? If the latter then they will contain a bias from which demographics are more or less likely to tell a stranger their vote choice.

I’m also not too sure about the value of the Obama vote numbers given how the party identification in Wisconsin has changed since 2008 (from Gallup state of the states, 52.3-34.5 over 2008 to 45-40 in the first 6 months of this year). I don’t think you can call the defection from Obama “implausibly high” in the 6 originally R districts given the statewide move in party id from D+18 to D+5 in the meantime.

As for the Exit Poll source, are you referring to the WI recalls, governor, senate and/or Supreme court races? Only the Final 2010 governor and senate exit polls were released. I assume that you are aware of the fact that ALL final exit polls are ALWAYS adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote – whether or not it is fraudulent. It is standard operating procedure; the pollsters state it quite clearly. The 2010 exit polls, just like in 2004 and 2008, had impossible new and third party voter percentages without specifying the corresponding vote shares. .Matching to the the recorded votes in each election required implausible vote shares of new and third party voters.Election fraud cost the Democrats at least 3 Senate and perhaps 30 House seats.

I don’t believe the 52.3-34.5 party ID. The Democrats had a consistent 39-35 edge in Party ID from 1996 to 2004. The2004 final exit poll was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting Party ID to a fictional 37-37. With 38-35 Party ID weights, Kerry was a clear winner.

As I have stated often, I provide a range of turnout assumptions in a sensitivity tables in all of my analysis. The method is described in postings on my website.
Have you used the True Vote model? Here are some base case scenarios.

In each of the followingl assume equal turnout rates for Obama and McCain voters as a base case. Check the sensitivity tables for a range of assumptions.
Supreme Court: With a 10% defection of Obama voters, Kloppenburg wins by 10,000 votes
Senate: With a net 7% defection of Obama voters, Feingold wins by 100,000
Governor: Given a net 7% defection of Obama voters, Barrett wins by 80,000
District 8 Recall: Given a net 5% defection of Obama voters, Pasch wins by 1,000

Let me emphasize again: The TVM does not rely om a single estimate. It generates a matrix of vote shares based on a range of turnout and voter preference assumptions.
One cannot say the same about the mainstream media’s pre-election and exit polls which always fail to take into account prior and current election True Vote as opposed to the fraud-ridden recorded vote. The simple fact that exit pollsters use an impossible number of prior election returning voters to force a match to the recorded vote is THE Smoking Gun. They have never explained the 2004 Final National Exit Poll. It indicates that there were 52.6 million Bush voters when he had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Mortality tables tell us that approximately 1.25% of voters die every year. That’s 5% over four years . So 2.5 million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Even assuming that 100% of those still living returned in2004, that would be a maximum of 48 million returning Bush voters. So how could the Final National Exit Poll indicate that there were 52.6 million returning Bush voters (43% of the 122 million 2004 recorded vote)?

Isn’t it strange that media-funded pre-election forecasters and post-election exit pollsters completely avoid the issue of election fraud?
That in and of itself is proof that it is systemic.

I was referring to the tab of your Google spreadsheet titled “ExitPolls” which if I read your article correctly you cite the discrepancy of from the official results from those polling stations as a corroboration of your conclusions.

One source of valuable information for analysis would be the original votes for the incumbents themselves in 2008: after all, if in 2008 everyone’s state senator vote matched the party of their choice for President there wouldn’t have been any GOP incumbents in these districts in the first place. Clearly the 2008 results show that individual candidates in district-level elections matter, and the best data to evaluate that effect does not seem to be accounted for in your Google spreadsheet and which should provide context for what size of differences from the Obama vote share might constitute “implausibly high” for these races involving the same candidates, let alone independent polling such as that done by DKos/PPP in these races since March.

Do you have a link for the 2004 Final National Exit Poll? I’m also wondering about where the 1.25% voter mortality rate figure is from since the US mortality rate is about 2/3rd of that, the demographics being skewed young due to immigration.

I just added comparative ward vote shares for four GOP recalls vs. the Supreme Court election results. As I stated in my previous reply, a Micro-level precinct analysis is not applicable to the True Vote Model. But aggregate county and state level data is.

You are correct. The 1.25% mortality rate is 1/3 over the published TOTAL rate. When I first began to analyze exit polls in 2005, I used the published 0.87% annual rate. But later I realized that I needed to calculate the rate for ages 18+. I used the National Exit poll Age demographic weights. The correct rate is approximately 1.25%. (5% rate between presidential elections). This rate is needed to estimate new and returning voters. It also exposes anomalies in the FINAL exit polls. Note, however, that vote shares are not sensitive to changes in the mortality rate. Whether the rate is 1.0% or 1.25% makes virtually no difference in the calculation of the True Vote.

I was not referring to the Recall exit polls although the results are interesting. I was referring to UNADJUSTED state and national presidential exit polls (which are close to the True Vote) and to the FINAL 2010 senate and governor exit polls. FINAL EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS FORCED to match the fraudulent recorded vote. They need to be adjusted to estimate the True Vote.

In 2005 the total population by these age groups was (interpolating for the 18-19 year age segments, which shouldn’t change the final numbers much because the death rates are low; data from http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2005-sa.html): 18-29 year olds 49,519,158, 30-44 year olds 63,939,674, 45-59 year olds 59,835,943, 60-64 year olds 13,001,863, 65+ year olds 36,790,113.

Hence the approximate death rate in 2005 for the 2004 voters would be 17% x 47,422/49,519,158 + … etc which comes to 1.09%. Since most of the contribution to that is from the 65+ segment that can probably be expected to go up slightly over the next few years and a full analysis should account for that.

There are two issues with the treatment of the exit polls that I haven’t seen you address yet: firstly that they don’t capture early/absentee voters, which was how 22.5% of votes were cast in 2004 (http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html); secondly they can only report on the basis of what people tell them, so it would only take a modest fraction of 2004 voters to be mistaken or to lie about how they voted in 2000 in order to explain the discrepancy between the 53.1 million that the 2004 exit poll on the surface implies voted for Bush in 2000 vs the 50.5 million who actually did.

For a classic example of pollsters being wrong, possibly lied to about voting in the current election – let alone one years earlier – see the UK 1992 general election (Shy Tory Syndrome).

However, if we assume that the exit poll was representative of the physically-present voters then the exit polls only suggest that 122,267,553×0.43×0.775 = 40.7 million of the physically-present voters voted for Bush in 2000 when there was a total of 50.5 million who did overall (that’s using the higher 43% number from the CNN source instead of the 41% raw number). This assumption places some restrictions on how the early/absentee votes might have been by returning Bush voters (i.e. fewer than about 10 million of the 27.5 million early/absentee cast, less when you allow for deaths and return turnouts falling short of 100%), but does mean that the exit poll is not necessarily anomalous in this regard even under the perfect accuracy assumption.

Of course that doesn’t mean that there was Shy Bush Syndrome in 2004 rather than systemic fraud, but in order to establish the latter’s statistical credentials the former and other alternative possibilities such as early/absentee votes having a different spread to those cast in person need to receive some treatment.

That was quick. You did a lot of work. Now let’s take a look at whatcha got.

You have 1.09% annual mortality; I had 1.25%. As I mentioned,, there is virtually no difference in the resulting vote shares. The difference is 0.16% (0.64% over a four year period). Given the 2000 recorded 105.4 million recorded vote, the net effect is 675,000 (105.4*.0064) fewer deaths and 675,000 fewer new voters. Since Kerry won new voters by 3-2, that would lower his True Vote by 115,000 votes. He won the True Vote by nearly 10 million votes. Read the links I sent you.

Early/absentee votes on paper ballots are favorable to the Democrats. Unfortunately about a million were uncounted in 2004. I believe that the exit pollsters factor in absentees in their sample design, but I could be wrong. In any case absentees are one component (along with spoiled and provisional ballots) of the (largely democratic) uncounted votes that is never discussed by academics or the media. I do in my book and in my posts. See the website.

Total votes cast, not the recorded vote, should be the basis of any analysis. There were 11 million net uncounted votes in the 1988 presidential election, the vast majority were for Dukakis. He lost by 7 million but may have won the True vote.

Your claim that exit poll respondents would lie or be mistaken is a classic myth which has been debunked by myself and others. Let’s be realistic. Only an extremely small percentage of voters would lie or forget. They should net each other out, yes? There is no evidence that Democrats suffer more from Alzeheimers than Republicans.

Go to my website for posts which debunk these arguments from naysayers back in 2004..

The Reluctant Bush Responder
Swing vs. Red shift: 1992-2004
Swing vs. Red shift: Hoisted on its own Petard
False Recall: A Rebuttal
A Conversation about False Recall
False Recall: Hoisted on its own Petard
False Recall: Exposed by the Final National Exit Poll

You should also read the the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ. The FAQ was written by a relentless naysayer. I put it on the blog.

You seem to be be looking to provide a rationale for the final exit poll adjustments. You are ignoring the fact that it is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR THE EXIT POLLSTERS TO FORCE THE FINAL EXIT POLL TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE.

How do you explain this VERY BIG anomaly:
At 12:22am the 2004 National Exit Poll had interviewed 13047 respondents, Kerry led by 51-48%. At 1am, with just 613 additional respondents, Bush led the FINAL by 51-48%.

The exit pollsters had to change the returning Bush/Gore mix from 41/39 to 43/37 and also inflate Bush vote shares of new voters from 41% to 45% and returning Gore voters from 8% to 10%.

I have had many similar discussions like this one. I am not going to be drawn into an interminable argument. Read the TIA FAQ and the other links. Until you do, there is no point in discussing these topics.

You appear to be quite analytical, but then you quote mainstream media talking point myths about exit polls. They were debunked a long time ago.. Reluctant Bush responder (since when were Bush voters shy?). Lying exit poll respondents (motive?) Forgetful exit poll respondents (really, they forgot who they voted for in the last election? That’s like forgetting how to speak). No one has ever provided any hard evidence to back up these claims. And they have all been debunked. Will you be the first?

The proofs are in my book and on the website…

Geoff

August 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm

The system won’t let me reply directly to your last comment, so here it’ll have to be.

On the mortality rates, I’m just suggesting a method for more accuracy with these. It’s not a vast issue, but since you’re obviously a very keen processor of data I figured you’d be interested.

You claim in http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallRebuttal.htm that “The mathematically impossible Final National Exit Poll 43/37% returning Bush/Gore voter mix refuted rBr.” except as I detailed in my last reply, it is *not* mathematically impossible (even assuming exit poll respondent recollections that are both representative of those voting in person and accurate about their votes cast in 2000) because the exit poll answers only come from those who were physically present at the polls and 22.5% of voters weren’t there, the latter group you said yourself trend Democratic and that therefore the group voting in person can be expected to trend slightly more Republican than the overall final vote. Since absentee voting rate varies a lot between states an analysis at that level should be able to reveal any local anomalies along the lines you suggest for the national case.

“You seem to be be looking to provide a rationale for the final exit poll adjustments. You are ignoring the fact that it is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR THE EXIT POLLSTERS TO FORCE THE FINAL EXIT POLL TO MATCH THE RECORDED VOTE.” – except I explicitly made reference to this difference when calculating the worst possible case for the rBr hypothesis under your criticism of it via the exit poll apparent mathematical impossibility. I will thank you not to ascribe hypothetical motivations to me since doing so is not objective and furthermore has no relevance to the subject at hand.

Let me make clear: I am not saying that the rBr hypothesis is necessarily true, only that there is a flaw in your reductio ad absurdum argument against it and therefore in any argument derived from that.

“Your claim that exit poll respondents would lie or be mistaken is a classic myth which has been debunked by myself and others. Let’s be realistic. Only an extremely small percentage of voters would lie or forget. They should net each other out, yes? There is no evidence that Democrats suffer more from Alzeheimers than Republicans.” – actually I *don’t* claim that, I presented it as something you had not eliminated as a cause of the exit poll/final reported vote discrepancies you found. Claiming that voters report accurately their past voting record is not evidence, it’s opinion until it’s substantiated. It is well-known in the polling industry that people – especially in exit polls – think of themselves as regular voters because, they have the evidence that they just voted. What one can do objectively to estimate the scale of this effect is to poll people asking their names and addresses and whether or not they voted in a particular past election then compare to the state voting record (some states’ lists are harder to come by than others).

That has the problem you highlight of potential manipulation of the voting record where you note that according to the November 2004 CPS survey 125.7 million voted in that election while only 122.3 million votes were recorded for the office of President. Roughly a million undervotes+overvotes were reported in that election for president (http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/2004%20EAVS%20Chapter%208.pdf), an underestimate since not all jurisdictions reported undervotes and overvotes so the gap is no more than about 2.4 million, or 2.0% (I don’t see any accounting for under/overvotes at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×4355303 that you link to from your site). Hence assuming without foundation that the CPS nonsampling error is zero, any discrepancy between claims by NEP respondents about past voting habits that exceeds the recorded tally for those respondents by significantly more than such a margin is prima facie evidence that exit poll respondents do indeed misrepresent their past votes, intentionally or not (specifically, relative to how accurately they represent their prior voting habits in the CPS).

“How do you explain this VERY BIG anomaly:
At 12:22am the 2004 National Exit Poll had interviewed 13047 respondents, Kerry led by 51-48%. At 1am, with just 613 additional respondents, Bush led the FINAL by 51-48%.” The best-placed people to answer that would be Edison/Mitofsky. I can hazard a guess if you would like. (On the subject of the 2004 NEP, I haven’t been able to find on your site where you show that its non-sampling error is necessarily negligible: could you please point me to that?)

The system requires that I approve comments. I approved it as soon as I noticed it in the automated e-mail.

1. Thanks for your mortality calculation.

2. You say: “You ask the questions a) How come 19 of the 25 states with the largest exit poll discrepancies were solid Kerry and battleground states? and b) How come 11 of the 13 states with the lowest exit poll discrepancies were solid Bush states? – have you seen Elizabeth Liddle’s paper at http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/files/WPEpaper.pdf ?

You are quoting Liddle? Yes, I did read that. She was hired by Warren Mitofsky. Her posts were classic obfuscations meant to confuse, not illuminate. My stats on the exit poll discrepancies speak for themselves.

3. On voters lying or forgetting: Unless you have evidence that Gore voters would lie or forget more than Bush voters, there is nothing to debate. The default assumption therefore must be: there IS NO DIFFERENCE.

4. You say: “It is well-known in the polling industry that people – especially in exit polls – think of themselves as regular voters because, they have the evidence that they just voted. What one can do objectively to estimate the scale of this effect is to poll people asking their names and addresses and whether or not they voted in a particular past election then compare to the state voting record (some states’ lists are harder to come by than others)”.

I proved that the NES study which examined that very issue in fact showed that respondents did tell the truth about their past votes- when TOTAL VOTES CAST IN 2000 AND 2004 was used as a baseline: http://richardcharnin.com/FalseRecallRebuttal.htm

So you want to PROVE that respondents are truthful by checking their address info against state voting records? Are you serious?
.
4. “Hence assuming without foundation that the CPS nonsampling error is zero, any discrepancy between claims by NEP respondents about past voting habits that exceeds the recorded tally for those respondents by significantly more than such a margin is prima facie evidence that exit poll respondents do indeed misrepresent their past votes, intentionally or not (specifically, relative to how accurately they represent their prior voting habits in the CPS)”

You have it exactly backwards. It is evidence that the votes miscounted and that the final exit polls are forced to match a bogus recorded vote. The difference between Census votes cast and the recorded vote is the NET UNCOUNTED VOTE. The NUV is comprised of two components: Uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. NUV = UNCOUNTED VOTES – STUFFED BALLOTS. There were 10.6 million net uncounted votes in 1988. 5.4 million in 2000 and 3.4 million in 2004. In 2004, there were 243,000 NET STUFFED BALLOTS in Florida and 143,000 net stuffed in Ohio. We don;t know how many uncounted ballots there were, only that stuffed ballots EXCEEDED uncounted ballots by 243k and 138k. Is it just coincidental that there were 11 states in which the NUV was negative and that the largest net differences were in FL and OH?
Check out the TVM:: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdHBzTExFekMxQ2NiN0ZzRU4tRWdaaFE#gid=0

5. Regarding the Final 2004 NEP, you say: “The best-placed people to answer that would be Edison/Mitofsky. I can hazard a guess if you would like”.

Why don’t YOU ask E-M that question? And by all means, go ahead:.Hazard a GUESS.

6. “On the subject of the 2004 NEP, I haven’t been able to find on your site where you show that its non-sampling error is necessarily negligible: could you please point me to that”?.

Could you point to evidence that it is not? But I will point you to this: In the 238 presidential state exit polls conducted between 1988 and 2004, 65 exceeded a very conservative 3% MoE (109 exceed a more realistic 2.0% MoE). Ginen a 95% confidence level, approximately 12 exit poll would be expected to exceed the 3% MoE (6 for DEms, 6 for Repubs). In fact 65 exceed the MoE. The odds are infinitesmal. But that’s not all: of the 65 which exceeded the MoE, 64 red-shifted to the GOP. The combined probability = infinitesmal * infinitesmal. How do you explain that?
Go here for the data and calculations: http://richardcharnin.com/StateExitPollDiscrepancies.htm

Let’s sum it up by looking at the BIG picture:
Unbiased election analysts now accept that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Since 2004, ALL exit poll and related models (such as the TVM) have confirmed election fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. UNADJUSTED exit polls were essentially correct and ALL FINAL exit polls that were were matched to FRAUDULENT RECORDED VOTES were WRONG.. If you agree with this statement, then all of your talking points are irrelevant. If you disagree, then you must believe a) that the Final 2004 National Exit Poll correctly confirmed that Bush won fairly by 3 million votes, b) the Final 2008 NEP confirmed that Obama won by just 9.5 million votes, and c) that the final exit polls all confimed that the 2002, 2006 and 2010 midterms were fair.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe the UNADJUSTED, PRISTINE exit polls or the FINALS.
If you believe the unadjusted polls, then you also must ALSO believe that my analysis proves the elections were fraudulent.

On The Other Hand, if you do not accept the unadjusted polls and my related analysis, then you must believe that the elections were fair and there is nothing nefarious in the exit pollster’s STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE of FORCING the polls to MATCH the RECORDED vote.

In my previous comment, I asked that you refrain from further replies unless you read ALL the links I gave you. You have apparently not done so.
I suggest you read all of my rebuttal posts.

With all due respect, whether you are aware of it or not, your arguments appear to be a sophisticated regurgitation of essentially the same talking points from mainstream media pundits and professional trolls and disinformationists.

Are you familiar with the work of Mark Crispin Miller, Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Kathy Dopp, Bob Fitrakis, Richard Hayes Phillips and others? All are well-known and respected election analysts.

You appear to be quite familiar with postings from Mark Blumenthal, Mark Lindeman, Elizabeth Liddle, Nate Silver and Farhad Manjoo. All are discredited exit poll naysayers.